Holding could use some tunnel vision

By Kenneth Davidson

12 May 2008 — 12:00am

THE Minister for Water, Tim Holding, claimed (BusinessDay, 1/5) that the real lunacy in the debate over Melbourne's water is the argument that water can be supplied more reliably and more cheaply from Tasmania than from a desalination plant and a north-south pipeline to Melbourne Water.

His rebuttal of the proposal can be broken into two parts: Firstly, "What makes Davidson think Tasmania will simply give Victoria water in perpetuity, or sell it to us with the certainty of supply that would justify a pipeline of this scale?"

According to Hydro Tasmania, about 45,000 gigalitres of fresh water runs into the ocean each year. This is about three times the flow into the Murray-Darling Basin and about a 100 times Melbourne's consumption.

Tasmania consumes less than 1% of its run-off. Even if only 1% of this run-off was sold to Victoria (equal to more than the total consumption in Melbourne), the amount is trivial compared with supply.

Based on the Victorian Government's decision to double the price of Melbourne Water to $2200 per megalitre in two years and the likely cost of piping the water to Victoria, there is scope for big profits for Tasmania, the pipeline owner, and Melbourne Water.

Advertisement

The Tasmanian Government realises it can earn far more money selling water to Victoria than using water to generate power for Victoria. And Victoria would still be far better off than if the desal plant went ahead, producing water at $3300 per megalitre.

The Tasmanian Government is not as stupid as Holding implies. A clue that the door to negotiations is ajar is contained in a report in the Tasmanian Country newspaper last Friday.

For the record, the Government statement said: "Since early 2007, the Tasmanian Government and Hydro Tasmania have been approached by several private proponents who are investigating options for transporting bulk water from Tasmania to the mainland. While the Government is prepared to listen, all proponents have been advised that Tasmania's water needs will always be the Government's first priority."

Even with the drought in Tasmania, water security is not insuperable to supplying enough water to meet the total demand for Melbourne, Geelong and Ballarat and allow the main Gippsland storages to be diverted into the Murray-Goulburn system. This could save most of the Murray-Goulburn, the 90% of South Australians dependent on the Murray, and the irrigators.

This leaves Holding's other objection to the Tasmanian pipeline - the cost. "On what basis does he (Davidson) claim the pipeline will cost only $3 billion?" he asks. "Melbourne Water has analysed this proposal and estimates a gravity-feed pipeline with the capacity to transfer 150 gigalitres a year would cost around $12 billion."

This is the most egregious claim of all. It implies Melbourne Water asked its desal consultants (GHD and Veolia) to manufacture the numbers. The proposed pipeline is 350 kilometres long and at its deepest point would lie at less than 100 metres. The pipes could be fabricated in Western Port, floated into Bass Strait in good weather and submerged into a trench.

Holding expects BusinessDay readers to believe that Melbourne Water reported that the cost would be in the order of $34 million a kilometre to assemble. By comparison, a serious study could have discovered within minutes on the internet that the 1250-kilometre Ormen Lange North Sea gas pipeline cost

$4 billion or $3 million per kilometre. That pipeline, which is now in operation, crosses mountain ranges at the bottom of the ocean at depths of 950 metres and the cost includes pumping and platforms.

The Tasmanian pipeline is not the only cheaper and environmentally superior alternative the Victorian Government has ignored.

In 2006, consulting engineers Sinclair Knight Mertz and the CSIRO undertook a survey of Melbourne's underground aquifers to see whether they could be exploited to store and recycle stormwater run-off in winter and extract it to meet peak summer demand.

The study found that up to a third of Greater Melbourne is suitable for aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) projects capable of producing 105 gigalitres of water at economic rates - that's more than a quarter of the current water demand.

Historically, Melbourne's aquifers were naturally recharged, but as the level of pavement and buildings increased, aquifer infiltration decreased. The aquifers could be opened up simply by digging holes and filling them with sand and stones. As pressure builds, water could be extracted with minimal pumping and the B-grade water used in industry and for parks, gardens and sports fields.

Most pollution in the Yarra and Port Phillip is caused by stormwater run-off that would be reduced. This is an environmental bonus. The cost would be in the order of $80 million, according to water engineer Brad Evans, who resurrected the study. If Victoria's water restriction advertising campaigns were cut, the ASR cost could be funded largely from the savings.

The original report was undermined by the brief from the Government, which asked the consultants to find out only if potable (drinkable) A1 and A2 water was available via the ASR. This meant the report was deliberately skewed to remove ASR as a viable option for B-quality irrigation/industrial water to replace potable water, making the desal plant redundant.

The policy of wilful ignorance continues with the desal environmental effects statement farce, which explicitly excludes alternatives. Who is benefiting by making the desal dinosaur a protected species?